Breaking News

4th Circuit Court upholds blocking of Trump's travel ban

A federal appeals court has decided to uphold blocking President Trump's ban on immigration from six Muslim-majority countries. The 10-3 ruling by the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a lower court's decision to halt key portions of Trump's executive order.

In it's ruling, the 4th Circuit Court makes extensive use of Trump's comments during his campaign when he called for a full ban on Muslims from entering the United States. The court stated that these comments are evidence against this executive order.

"The evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, creates a compelling case that (the executive order's) primary purpose is religious," the ruling states. "Then-candidate Trump's campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States."

When did the implied or guessed-at motive of somebody become the standard for applying the law? Did I miss it?

If judging motives and intent aside from the stipulations contained in the text of an executive order is now the new activist judge paradigm, someone should inform James Comey, who obviously will never qualify to be federal jurist. After all, he said that in Hillary Clinton's "investigation", "intent" was not provable, therefore, laws concerned with the handling of classified documents, regardless of the non-inclusion of intent as a condition for violation, were not violations that could be prosecuted.

Somebody, including these liberal judges, needs a refresher course on exactly what constitutes hard evidence versus opinion. Adding 2+2 and getting 6 is NOT the right answer.

Of course, this isn't at all surprising. Seven of the fifteen judges on the 4th Circuit are Obama appointees, and three are Clinton's, hence a two thirds Democrat majority.

This case is going to have to go to the Supreme Court to be properly adjudicated, and the President's power to control the borders will be affirmed.

The problem with the judges' ruling is that it misses the fact that Islam is both a religious and political movement in one. It takes only a basic knowledge of Islam to know that in Islam God and Caesar never separated like in Christianity.

In fact, that's what makes it so dangerous. In much of the Middle East both had separated except that Iran went back to the combined model with the 1979 Revolution, and terrorists for the most part also follow the combined model.

Libya where the Manchester bomber had just come back from is one of the countries in Trump's list for temporary extreme vetting that the courts and liberals have found too extreme.

How many Americans died on 9/11?  How many children were just killed a few days ago by a refugee in England?

If you want to talk numbers, I would argue that no number of deaths is good.  If we are bringing in dangerous people who will perpetrate another 9/11 style attack on our soil, it's not worth it.

If we were bringing in completely peaceful people, such as the Vietnamese refugees of the 1970s-80s, people from eastern Asia and Europe, then there'd be no problem, or hardly any problems to speak of.

But our progressive friends want to import hundreds of thousands of people who even their own cousins in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc., won't admit, and we are already seeing the chaos such people have caused in western Europe, with skyrocketing rape and assault rates, anti-Semitic incidents, violence in the schools, and terroristic attacks like in Manchester.

No comments